Venezuelan Forces Neutralized Group Of Mercenaries That Landed Near Capital (Videos, Photos)

To know whether or not majority of Americans are warmongers read their comments on Western propaganda outlets like CNBC, Fox, Yahoo News, etc. You’ll notice how bloody most of them sound.

It appears like most Americans have a superiority complex. They believe themselves exceptional and the leader of the world that must be obeyed. When a small country like Iran begins to challenge them, they are filled with murderous rage and would support any president that promises to use force against that country. They hate Iran and were very happy when Soleimani was assassinated. They never attempted to stop Trump when he seems on the verge of war.

Most Americans indeed are bloody murderers or at least and accomplice.

You want me to determine the stance of “majority of Americans” based on faceless commentator accounts on the Internet? Doesn’t that sound sketchy to you…?

Please do not underestimate the US’s anti-war movement. American soldiers protesting, deserting, and fragging corrupt officers are the major reason the US pulled out of Vietnam. Anti-war protests against the “Syria gassed people for no reason” story have prevented the troop surge both the Obama and Trump administrations have pushed for. Check out the Armed Force Tea Party protests: American soldiers were on Facebook with messages like “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War,” and “I didn’t sign up to kill the poor for the rich.”

If “most Americans indeed are bloody murderers,” why didn’t Iran giving dozens of American troops headaches and maybe killing Ayatollah Mike send Americans into a blind rage against Iran…? Sorry, Objective, but this claim needs more evidence.

Okay, what about their support for Trump? Obama stated clearly that war is only the alternative to reaching a deal with Iran. The U.S leadership is divided over Iran. Some want to contain and live with it rather than pay the price of a war. Others still believe the Iranian regime can be overthrown. Trump and his patrons clearly belong in this camp. Even a majority of democrats are averse to any diplomacy with Iran. They opposed Obama’s efforts to reach that deal. Most Democrats only allowed it because the president wanted it, and due to party loyalties.

Many in the U.S supported Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani. Every American who thinks Trump does not have an Iran strategy is misguided. The MSM keep regurgitating that Trump doesn’t seem to have an Iran policy. But the truth is he does have a coherent policy towards Iran. It is clear to all who observe his actions. This policy will clearly lead to war. Yet when he promised to pull the U.S out of the deal, a majority of Americans supported it. Did they forget what Obama said about not reaching a deal with Iran? Certainly not. They prefer a war hawk like Trump.

And if you think Trump is only trying to strike a new deal with Iran or destroy Obama’s legacy, then you are even more deluded about the whole thing.

Objective, do you remember General Wesley Clark? “We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”? The Bush admin. took out two of those countries: Iraq got an invasion and occupation, Sudan has been in a permanent state of emergency. The Obama admin. took out four of those countries: Libya got regime change, Somalia got a bigger drone war, Syria got a proxy “civil war,” Lebanon got “moderate” terrorists on its border and millions of Syrian refugees. Do you really think Obama would look at the last country on that list, Iran, and decide to leave it alone…?

Yeah, I saw that video.
But the question is; what has the American public done to stop it?
Obama did destabilize countries, but he picked on weaker ones that’s unlikely cost many American lives so that the U.S public does not protest. Iran is a whole different issue. Rather than pay the price of a war with Iran, which will dwarf the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, Obama decided to engage and contain Iran. Trump clearly has taken a different path: that of regime change and disarmament. All his policies are aimed at disarming Iran by first weakening its proxies, starting color revolutions within Iran to destabilize its government. The strike on Soleimani was a decapitating strike as Soleimanin was slated to take over when Khamenei dies. He targeted Soleimani because Soleimani was very popular even with moderate Iranians.

So this clearly shows the U.S will accept nothing but regime change. This strategy is a surefire path to war! Obama didn’t like it. He wasn’t prepared to start something that the U.S wouldn’t have the stomach to finish. A region-wide war is not what America can win. Even Taliban has proved too difficult to defeat. And if America does not finish this war with Iran by nuking Iran, then it can be sure a nuclear-armed more dangerous Iran will emerge.

Obama negotiated the JCPOA deal only to never remove all the sanctions as the deal said. He then supported a genocidal war with Iran’s Shia Muslim allies in Yemen while trying to demonize Iran for appearing to help, and this was on top of supporting “moderate” terrorists and “neo-Nazis” against two more of Iran’s allies, Syria and Russia respectively. The Obama administration was trying to foment war and regime change for Iran like the Trump administration is now. Obama and his people were just slicker and less direct about it.

In that case you are saying the Obama administration shot itself in the foot. The JCPOA certainly does present a huge obstacle for war. Not only does it strip the U.S of any credible reason to attack but also put the U.S at odds with some of its closest allies in Europe over the crisis. It tipped international public opinion against the U.S.A and undermines the ability of America to mobilize any international sanction coalition to pressure Iran. There is also the U.N arms embargo that is slated to expire in October, and over which there is much fanfare right now.

Of course any U.S president, including Obama, would prefer a regime change in Tehran. But Obama obviously did not want to take that path as it is highly likely to culminate in all-out war. Most Obama administration officials were and still oppose war with Iran. The JCPOA has certainly slowed down Trump’s push for a confrontation with Iran. He has been trying to kill it for two years now. He is likely to succeed in the end, but at least it did present some challenge.

What do you mean “strip the U.S of any credible reason to attack”? There was never a credible reason. For the past 100 years or so, “War is a Racket” America just makes up reasons. Trump made up reasons in assassinating Soleimani, but Obama made up reasons by not fulfilling the deal while attacking Iran’s allies. And if Syria fell, do you think the “moderate” head choppers would not have found their way into Iran…?

What do you mean “at odds with some of its closest allies”? The European countries never removed all the sanctions either; countries like the UK provided support to slaughter Yemen. The JCPOA was a great propaganda piece to make it appear that the US and Obama did not want war with Iran, but never sticking to the deal while constantly stabbing Iran in the back show what a farce it is.

By “stripping the U.S of any credible reason to attack” I meant it will challenge their case for war with Iran. They need to sell any war to Americans as a plausible cause. When Iran abides by a deal it signed with the U.S, there is no such justification.

America does make up reasons for war, but they try to make it as convincing as they can, particularly a big war like Iran. The public will need to sacrifice and keep sacrificing till victory. A repeat of vietnamization with Iran will be catastrophic – at least to Israel.

America is currently at odds with its closest European partners because the U.S pulled out of a deal every country except the U.S and Israel confirmed it was working. The Europeans don’t like to be dragged into another quagmire in the Middle East.

The point of this conversation is that a great majority of Americans support Trump’s policy. This makes them collectively responsible for whatever destruction that results from his folly.

If Iran backs out of the deal because the US is not honoring the agreement, the justification to attack gets stronger than before the deal. Most Americans would not really know if the US were sticking to the deal; I’m not even sure if you really know…

You are correct that these casus belli are made “as convincing as they can,” and isn’t quietly reneging on the deal while Iran openly pushes against it “convincing”?

Europeans, especially their leadership, are complicated. Yes, some “don’t like to be dragged into another quagmire.” Some remember that parts of Europe has been NWO oligarch puppets for longer than the US. Some remember parts of Europe conquering countries for the oligarchs. Other Europeans remember getting conquered by the “international clique.” Why else do you think European countries that publicly approve of Iran sticking to the deal still have not rejected the sanctions either…?

Fact is: Enough Americans oppose Trump and the oligarchs’ policies to stop full implementation of them. Armchair supporters of the NWO never really enforce or enact policies, and people like the CIA’s “Ayatollah Mike” (allegedly) who try to fabricate casus belli through moves like assassinating General Soleimani only make up a small minority of Americans.

If I understand your point what you are saying is that Obama tricked Iran into this deal in order to make the case of war more appealing to the public. In that case, the Obama administration never intended for the U.S to honor that deal. Sorry, your logic is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Obama involved international partners in the deal – including Russia, China, and the IAEA. Every party, including the U.S had ratified consistently that Iran was abiding by the deal.
2. Trump campaigned on the promise of getting a “better deal” not “no deal”, and he won the election, defeating Obama’s candidate
3. This deal further divided the U.S public regarding America’s policy towards Iran (here, I mean “peace” or “war”). Obama clearly said, “no deal” means “war with Iran”.
4. Iran’s assets in the U.S., worth over $100 billion was “irreversibly unfrozen” and loads of cash shipped to Iran. Why ship that kind of cash to a country you are planning to invade?
5. To cajole a case for war with Iran, Obama did not have to pretend to reach an agreement. There are better and easier ways to do that – like goading Iran into attacking Israel or a U.S target, or even a false flag.

You are trying to complicate this discussion by introducing irrelevant facts. If we are going to understand each other we must stick to one thing. I have good reasons to believe that Obama meant peace by reaching a deal with Iran. But I refuse to talk at length about this because it diverts from the main issue we started on.

I will repeat the assertion that led to this argument: A majority of Americans oppose war only when it costs many American lives, and not because it is costs the lives of others. In other words, as long as no or few Americans die, a majority will support their government’s war of domination around the world.

For example, a nationwide protest erupted in the U.S during the Vietnam war because tens of thousands of Americans had died but the quick victory they were promised was yet to happen.

On the other hand, they turn a blind eye to their government’s destruction and murder of Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, and Palestinians. Why? Because it is not costing many American lives. The support their government’s policies towards the affected countries by actively endorsing it, being indifferent, or passively opposing it. I am sure if tens of thousands of Americans were dying from these wars, there’ll be another nationwide violent protests to end the wars. But as this is only affecting other people, particularly Muslims (anti-Muslim sentiment is at all-times high in America), they are okay with that. A few oppose it though – but a very few when compared to the total population.

Israel has been condemned many times by the U.N through countless resolutions, but an overwhelming majority of Americans still support them even as they plunder, kill, torture, blockade, and imprison Palestinians.
What will you say about this?

But sure, back to your bloodthirsty Americans claim: When it comes to “a majority of Americans oppose war only when it costs many American lives,” are you factoring all other possible explanations for this? First, think about the effort needed to mark “Support” on a poll. Now, think about the effort needed to go through military training and warfare. Next, think about the effort needed to protest the lawless wars, reject a draft, blow the whistle, and/or frag a corrupt military officer or other leader. Is the effort of the poll answer anywhere close to the others? No…? Then this is another viable explanation for “majority support:” It’s easy to say one supports a stupid war; fighting in it or actively opposing it is much more difficult.

A second explanation is educational capacity of protestors compared to banskters. Of course it took time to build the anti-war movement; educating people that the US military gets used as “a high–class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers,” as USMC Major General Smedley Butler put it (in 1935), takes time. This is especially true when one has to compete with the banskters’ education systems, pro-war propaganda, censorship, intimidation, or worse. All that World War 2, “we saved the world from Fascism” rhetoric? Do you, Objective, pretend that is true? If you did, it would make related narratives like “we’re saving the world from Communism” more difficult to see through. And this is not unique to Americans; many people from around the world neglect to recognize that, for example, flipping Germany from fighting against Zionist oligarchs to sending nuclear-capable submarines to “Israel” for its Samson Option is not a “victory” worth celebrating.

A third explanation is the banksters’ reliance on coercion and violence. The banksters are slave masters, and Slaves never go free because of picketing the big house (alone). They would just be forced back to work with no real recourse. Slaves go free by neutralizing the masters’ successful command over violence. There are a number of ways to do this, but organizing a slave revolt, escape, etc. is difficult and takes time. In the Vietnam War’s case, this took the form of US military protesting, deserting, and fragging unlawful officers. If defeating slave masters and slavery were easy and quick, slavery would be over by now.

So, what do you think? Are those reasonable alternatives…?

You are still repeating the same thing. Soldiers protesting or civilians protesting. They are all Americans. Why did the soldiers not protest at the beginning of the war? Why did the civilians not protest at the beginning of the war? What triggered the protest in the military and civilians? The simple answer is: The cost of the war became unbearable. There were so many lives lost and victory wasn’t coming soon.

I think if you understand my definition of “support for war” you will answer my questions better. By “supporting a war” I mean “actively” supporting it, “being indifferent” or “passively” opposing it. You claim that it is difficult to make any large-scale anti-war protest happen, and that it takes time to build such a movement. But I dispute that claim. Because it happened before – and that means given the right circumstance it’ll happen again. All that is required for Americans to come out en mass to stop their government is for A LARGER NUMBER OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO DIE. If this were to happen, the demonstrations would be worse than that on Vietnam due to rapid spread of information.

Sorry, I still stick to my understand of the American mind: As long as we aren’t dying in unacceptable numbers, we don’t care what happens to the others – at least not enough to stop our government.

If Obama never honored his own end of the bargain Iran would not have frozen its nuclear program to such a great extent. That deal worked well to maintain some limited peace in the region. Iran’s behavior towards the U.S even changed significantly.

The deal did not specifically oblique the U.S to stop meddling in Yemen or Iraq or Syria. America’s obligations were “lifting sanctions, arms embargo, and unfreezing Iran’s assets”. All of which Obama fulfilled. America’s policies in these countries you mentioned were a different thing all together, and Tehran never expected of Washington to change them.

To understand what Obama did, please read this document by The SABAN Center:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

Iran stuck to terms of the deal while insisting that the US and other countries do so in turn by removing the sanctions. The US did not. You do understand how scams work, right? Or did you have evidence that the Obama administration truly did remove all the sanctions? Because even the Trump administration lies about what the sanctions are doing. And no, Objective, a Saban Center analysis paper from 2009 cannot discuss what Obama actually did in relation to Iran, not unless they have a time machine…

As for US meddling around Iran, a couple features about Yemen make it uniquely about stabbing Iran in the back so it might reject the deal. First, Iraq and Syria were attacked before the JCPOA was agreed to; Yemen was attacked after. Second, Iraq and Syria largely allowed refugees to leave the country and seek aid elsewhere; Yemen’s refugees were largely hemmed in with the starvation and disease. Third, Yemen is not on General Clark’s “seven countries in five years;” it was attacked purely to provoke Iran.

If you saw all this and still thought that the US and its bankster masters are good to make deals with, then… are you sure you understand scams…?

The U.S did unfreeze over a hundred billion dollars for Iran. It did lift sanctions against Iran’s central bank and others – foreign investors even started investing in Iran without any penalties. Every U.N-related sanctions were also lifted except for the arms embargo. What discouraged many investors was the fear that Trump will end the deal if he wins, so foreign investors were reluctant to invest.
If you still don’t believe that Iran benefited from the deal (enough to convince then to freeze their nuclear program), then check the records of Iran’s exports and imports from 2015 to May 2018 – particularly oil.
If Iran never benefited because America was not fulfilling its obligations, we would definitely know because Iran won’t keep silent about it. But they never accused the U.S of violating the deal until Trump pulled out.

I am very certain you did not read the SABAN Center analysis paper I refereed you to. It was written in 2009, but it is just like the movie script of what is happening today. The division in American leadership reflects this analysis paper. There are two groups with divergent views on dealing with Iran. Both groups (Obama vs Trump) keep military options on the table when dealing with Iran. While both keep military options on the table, they differ on the extent of provocation by Iran that should trigger a military response. Obama wanted “Engagement and/or Containment”. Trump wants “Regime Change or Disarmament”. Read that paper thoroughly to see how their actions fall in line with what the authors recommend according to each strategy.

The war in Yemen was started by Saudi Arabia on 22 March 2015, and not by the U.S, although it supports Saudi Arabia’s efforts. The JCPOA agreement was reached on 14th July 2015 and became effective on 18th October 2015. The negotiation process predates the Yemen war, and the agreement was finalized during the Yemen war.
So how did Obama back-stab Iran on Yemen?

Ahh, I see. The US EIA does confirm that Iran’s oil production and exports increased after the JCPOA was finalized. Iran’s issues were likely with “foreign investors… reluctant to invest.” Sorry, Objective, a lot about these sanctions is shadowy threats and bureaucracy.

Although, that reluctance is not just Trump’s fault. Obama never really sold to the public how Iran was following the deal and that further trade is justified. I mean, I did find one public statement from Obama defending Iran’s side of the JCPOA… from 2018… well after the deal was doomed… Between 2015 and 2016, we were more likely to hear Obama vilifying Iran for maybe supporting the “Yemeni rebels.”

As for the SABAN Center’s paper, are you factoring in Orwellian doublethink? How the dystopians lie, not just to others, but also to themselves? The “Engagement and/or Containment” side knows that containment is never going to work against Iran. It should have been obvious after the revolution against the CIA’s plant, Shah Palavi, or after the Iran-Iraq War. For the sake of appearing diplomatic, containment is imagined as a viable strategy while military options leading to dominance and regime change remain their inevitable objective.

And the “Obama back-stab Iran on Yemen” is explained by something you kind of said: “The extent of provocation against Iran that should trigger a military response.” Wahhabist Saudi Arabia cannot exist without Federal Reserve America; it’s like Al-CIA-da. Therefore, it would not take major action without the US either. How was Obama or the banksters supposed to know that genocide on Yemen would not be enough to provoke Iran into rejecting the JCPOA as being done in poor faith? Or provoke Iran into overt military support of Yemen so that the US could justify rejecting the deal? This genocide was much worse than the one Obama fomented in Ukraine against ethnic Russians the year before, so it could have worked, right…?

Obama didn’t have to sell anything to the public to assure it was okay to trade with Iran. All he had to do was say whether or not Iran did its part. Or he could simply refrain from accusing Iran of any violations. He never claimed that Iran was in violation. That means all was good. In fact, not even Trump did after taking office.
Check the dates regarding Yemen to see if it makes sense from your point of view.

You miss-quoted me. I said “they differ on the extent of provocation “by” Iran that should trigger a military response”. This clearly has nothing to do with Yemen.

For the first time I agree with you on one point: Both Obama and Trump would want Regime Change in Iran. The issue is, at what speed or to what extend is each willing to pursue it? Obama would accept any kind of method that does not increase the risk of conflict with Iran. But Trump has demonstrated a willingness to accept risks that can start a war. “the killing of Soleimani” is the ultimate indicator this mindset.

I’ll still repeat that you did not read the Policy paper I refereed you to. To underestimate the content of that document means you did not read it nor did you contrast with current events. You will see that Obama followed the recommendations in that paper: Making Iran an Offer it is Unlikely to Refuse, while keeping open a militarily option.
Trump is also following that paper’s recommendations on the course of action that will destabilize the regime: Color revolutions, Targeting Iran’s proxies, Sanctions, Threats, Decapitation (Soleimani), and finally Invasion or Limited military action.

That paper helps me understand current events and even predict the future.

“Among Americans who approve of the job Trump is doing, 61% strongly support his decision, compared to 6% of people who disapprove of the president”.
This poll has strong links to the Killing of Qaseem Soleimani.
Truth hurts sometimes, but clearly, your people are very aggressive by nature.
Read more here: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-01-08/poll-nearly-half-of-americans-support-airstrike-that-killed-top-iranian-military-leader

That poll also only had 1,995 respondents. Clearly, the opinions of less than 2,000 people is sufficient to judge more than 300,000,000 people… [/sarcasm]

61% approval rating for a war hawk using a random sample size of 1995 is quite insightful. It may not give the actual percentage of those who support warmongers, but it does give a clue.

Americans understand that this confrontational stance against Iran is a path to war. That is how all America’s wars start. Do you know the only time Americans come out en mass to protest a war? It is only when the U.S suffers huge loss of life. Americans never protest a war until it becomes costly in lives not treasure. They don’t protest a war because they feel their government is oppressing others, killing other people’s loved ones, destroying their homes and infrastructure, and spreading insecurity and Chaos in other people’s countries. Look at what has become of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon. If the U.S public has any conscience and morality left, they would oppose any further hostilities and demand that their leaders withdraw troops from these regions. Trump did promise to do that, but he is instead deploying more forces than he is withdrawing.

This is the reason I feel no pity for them even as corona virus is killing them in thousands. If you do believe that God exists, Poppadop, you should know that America is an evil empire and it’ll one day pay the price for all this death and destruction it has brought upon the World. I for one thinks they are already paying the price. It’ll only get worse from here. And I pray it does.

The sample may be random, but is it representative? “Interviews were conducted online,” but I cannot find information on where online interviewees were made aware of the poll. If the interviewees were found through mainstream media sites, for instance, the sample might not be representative since we know overall viewership of mainstream media is declining.

As I said before, the Syria War protests were serious enough that both Obama and Trump failed to get their large troop surges, and yes, that was before the “huge loss of life” happened. If your claim were true, that public support to throw tens of thousands or more Americans into overt combat with Syrians (and Russians) existed, why did this NOT actually happen? Please explain that.

I said the sample size does not accurately represent the population, but at least it does give a clue that possibly, for every 2000 or so Americans, 61% support Trump and his hawkish policies.

About the Syrian demonstrations, I am not saying there is no opposition to war in America. But this opposition is only a pathetic minority. Majority clearly does support America’s imperial wars of domination.

Obama almost launched attacks on Syria in 2015. If not for Russia, he would have done that to topple Assad. There was NO sizable public opposition to his articulated desire to launch the attacks. In fact, he had patriot batteries deployed along the Turkish/Syrian border and other armaments. I’ll emphasize that ONLY RUSSIA deterred that attack NOT the American public. You don’t need a big troop surge to start a war. America has military assets all over the Middle East. In fact, it outguns Russia in the Middle East.

Secondly, nearly everyone following Middle East events knows that the U.S created and funds, trains, arms, and defends ISIS. ISIS wrecked havoc across vast swaths of land between Syria and Iraq. Even the rebels, though there is the legitimate ones, were infiltrated by Alqaeda. When America destroyed Libya, it didn’t require a troop surge. They now use moronic Jihadist as their foot soldiers for destabilizing countries.

Secondly, Donald Trump launched attacks on Syria in 2017 I think. Some in the U.S protested, but do not mistake this as showing concern for the safety of Syria. The protests were due to the fear of an all-out war with Russia that will lead to the death of thousands or even millions of Americans. AMERICANS NEVER OPPOSE A WAR OUT OF A SENSE OF MORALITY. THEY OPPOSE WARS ONLY WHEN IT STARTS TO COST THEM MANY LIVES. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THEY OPPOSE WAR IN ANY SIZABLE NUMBERS. VICTIMIZATION IS A GOOD EXAMPLE!

If anti-war sentiment were “only a pathetic minority,” why did the establishment not go to war…? Russia was not stopping escalating the Syria War if there was enough public support. And if your claim were true that “fear of an all-out war with Russia” was the main thing sinking public support and the escalations, I refer you back to the Morning Consult poll you brought up, Objective. When asked if Russia is “an ally of the United States, is friendly but not an ally, is unfriendly but not an enemy, or is unfriendly and is an enemy of the United States,” 28% of respondents answered, “Unfriendly, but not an enemy.” 35% responded, “Enemy.” If the poll were representative, I’m not seeing a lot of fear from the results…

What Russia actually did was wake people up about the “Syria gassed people for no reason” story, and arranged that Syria’s chemical weapons be destroyed. This killed Obama’s casus belli (reason for war), too many people saw through the lies, and the escalation had to be dropped. The casus belli did not magically gain legitimacy because Trump flipped to backing it, either.

What exactly is your definition of “public support for war”? I bet you mean when majority are in support of a war. That is an incomplete definition. Their is another dimension to it. Public support for war also refers to indifference or passive resistance. The kind of resistance that will jolt people like Trump into action is something like vietnamization. Indifference or passive resistance never stops them. Only active resistance does. But that will never happen in any meaningful numbers until Americans start to die. that is the primary reason your government prefer to use rebels now. they don’t want to piss off their population by getting American soldiers killed. Thankfully, a lot of those head-choppers perished in Syria.

Russia is the country that saved Syria. If not for the Russian intervention in 2015 Assad would be another Gaddafi by now. Even with public support, no devil in the American leadership establishment would start a war with Russia or any nuclear armed state. The only time America will fight a nuclear power is when it directly attacks U.S forces or homeland or a close ally like Israel. but the U.S will drop nukes on non-nuclear countries like Iran given the chance. They did that before to Japan. Modern American leaders are even more evil.

35% regarding Russia an enemy does not mean they want to fight Russia. In this case it means they do not trust Russia. Those who consider Russia to be friendly are implying that Russia can be trusted not to harm the U.S.

Did you know that at a point there were up to 5000 U.S soldiers in Syria? Even if the U.S public aren’t aware of such numbers, they should know for sure that there are U.S forces in Syria. Have you ever asked yourself how America’s presence in Syria helps its security or economy? Because it doesn’t. The only thing it does is destroy a whole country, spread chaos, death, poverty, suffering and insecurity among Millions! But of course, that is not enough reason to trigger a Vietnamization-type opposition. What is the need doing something that you’ve tried over and over before and it doesn’t work?

Good point about lack of dissent (or ease in silencing it), but I did factor that in.
So, when did “Americans start to die” in Syria? Even your claim of Americans who somehow also have enough foresight to see future American deaths in fighting Russia ignores the foresight to see use of allies and proxies to absorb casualties. This practice did not begin with Al-CIA-da and Wahhabist mercenaries either; the NWO oligarchs won the previous world wars the same way, using Europeans and the Soviets to absorb casualties.

You know how ISIS-affiliates keep magically finding American TOW missiles and convenient airstrikes on Syrian government positions? The Soviets magically found millions of tons of American food, oil, gasoline, and aviation fuel, hundreds of thousands of trucks, airplanes, and other vehicles, etc. via the Lend-Lease Act.
Therefore, why keep insisting that Americans failed to see future use of allies and proxies to mitigate American fatalities?

When it comes to a nuclear power that “directly attacks U.S forces or homeland or a close ally like Israel,” what do you think would have happened if the US sent tens of thousands of American soldiers into active combat in Syria? That Russia would have just give up the Tartus base, another country on its dwindling lists of allies, and risk losing Iran, too? What do you think would have happened if Russia stopped the slaughter of ethnic Russians in Donbass by pushing the “neo-Nazis” out of Kiev? That the US would give up on the “Danzig Massacre”-esque provocation it helped start in the first place? What do you think would have happened if Russia responded to “Israel” getting 15 airmen killed when their Il-20 was shot down by shooting down “Israeli” jets? That “Israel” would not push the “new Hitler” rhetoric already being directed at Putin and try to turn him into “old Hitler”?

The NWO oligarchs, including ones running the US and “Israel,” have no problem starting a war with Ex-Bolshevik Russia. The only thing stopping them is how most people are not buying their fabricated casus belli anymore. Wake up, Objective – times are different now. Japan was nuked at a time when the Japanese were trying to surrender for months before, but the censorship was so bad that almost no Americans knew about it. Walter Trohan at the Chicago Tribune had to wait 2 weeks after the nukes to report on this. In 2013, I was able to watch videos from the US, Syria, Russia, Iran, etc. about how ridiculous “Assad gassed people for no reason” was hours after the mainstream media began crying about it.